it's so nice to be back. thanks for watching. my thanks to joyce vance, charlie psy charlie sykes, the rev. i'm nicolle wallace. mpt daily starts right now. >> did anything change? >> we've been gone. >> i haven't seen you since last year, and yet everything changes and everything stays the same. >> from phillip bump, he gave up golf for now. >> good for him. baby steps. thank you nicole. if it's friday, it's all about that base. base. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. wash, rinse repeat.
we begin tonight with one heck of a lead story. as the seeming inevitability of eventual impeachment proceedings collides with talks to reopen the government. folks with two big stories sort of lingering today, impeachment chatter and the president's shutdown over the wall, they're more connected than you might realize. right now it appears that the president isn't just trying to built a wall to keep illegal immigrants out, he's trying to build a wall to keep his political base in. with this new democratic house, with all the investigations, with mueller's report in the works, it's very possible mr. trump realizes that if he loses his base, he could lose the presidency as lindsey graham has been warning. the president met with congressional leaders at the white house this afternoon and then gave a lengthy press conference, sort of a classic trumpian press conference. what we saw at that press conference was a tale of two trumps. one who seemed intent to dig in and another who seemed a bit eager to get out. but neither seemed willing to buck the base. therein lies the conundrum.
on the one hand there was trump digging in moments after democratic leaders spoke. >> so we told the president we needed the government open. he resisted. in fact, he said he'd keep the government closed for a very long period of time, months or even years. >> i did say that, absolutely i said that. i don't think it will, but i am prepared and i think i can speak for republicans in the house and republicans in the senate, they feel very strongly about having a safe country, having a border that makes sense. without borders i've said it many times, we don't have a country. >> so there was that, and there was also this. >> you don't need congressional approval to build the wall? >> no, absolutely. we can call a national emergency because of the security of our country, absolutely. no, we can do it. i haven't done it. i may do it. i may do it, but we could call a national emergency and build it very quickly and it's another way of doing it. but if we can do it through a
negotiated process, we're giving that a shot. >> so is that a threat hanging over the democrats? >> i never threaten anybody. but i am allowed to do that. >> to be clear, the president says he's willing to keep the government partially shut down for years if congress doesn't fund his wall. at at the same time, he claims he doesn't need the funds, and he doesn't need congress. we're going to try to solve that riddle in a few minutes, which brings us to the version of president trump we also saw today, who seemed as if he was looking for an off ramp or at least a cease fire. he also said he's convening a working group to try to figure out a way for both sides to get on the same page, in washington speak have a commission. and he also seemed to be laying the groundwork for a potential detaunt as congress awaits the supreme court's decision on daca. he sounded awfully confident that the shutdown would be over in a matter of days, perhaps that january 11th payday is lingering in his head. it goes as it always goes with
president trump, who knows, and we'll see what happens. let's bring in tonight's panel, kimberly atkins, michaelger son, and doug cornell. kimberly right after the president finished, my ep and i both had two different interpretations of which trump we saw. the guy wants to dig in and a guy with an exit ramp. one of us saw one more dug in, one of us saw one desperate for an exit ramp. >> i saw someone who was pretty dug in. he seemed to actually be enjoying himself at this press conference where he was doing his normal free wheeling thing and it seems to me that as long as he has this shutdown battle over the wall, it gives him the platform to keep talking about the wall, to keep focus on the wall. as soon as the government is back up and running, that goes away. so that's really a disincentive for him to move on this at all, and at the same time, the democrats have taken over the house are just as
disincentivized to budge because they are not going to fund a wall. nancy pelosi was very clear on this. i think we are farther away than we have been up and to this point, and you know, we can have working groups and stuff. it's up to donald trump. if donald trump does not commit to a deal, it's not going to happen. you can have as many meetings as you want. >> michael, donald trump always wants his cake and eat it too, can he le open the government and keep his wall fight going? >> i don't know. he is pursuing a base strategy in all this, but his own party has some divisions. i think democrats are united on this issue. >> trump unites them. >> exactly. >> we're not even talking about nancy pelosi and all that trouble she was going to have getting elected speaker thanks to donald trump. >> you have republican senators who realize they don't want republican governance to look like it doesn't work, which is what's happening in this circumstance, so there are divisions on his side. i just am not sure he's all that concerned about the party. i think he's making one
calculation. it's a self-interested calculation, which is, you know, can i displease the base and do the things i need to do including defending for impeachment going forward. >> he does seem nervous about the shutdown now more so than he did a week ago. listen to his response to my colleague hallie jackson's question. >> are you still proud to own this shutdown? >> well, you know, i appreciate the way you say that, but once -- i'm very proud of doing what i'm doing. i don't call it a shutdown. i call it doing what you have to do for the benefit and for the safety of our country, so you can call it whatever you want. you can call it the schumer or the pelosi or the trump shutdown. doesn't make any difference to me. just words. >> so doug, was schumer and pelosi relieved that he said fine, call it the trump shutdown. >> he's doubling down on that.
public opinion is going against him on this. public opinion is against the wall. public opinion is, you know, bringing -- i think bringing down his approval ratings, and you know, i think that there is -- you're also seeing some fraying of the republican coalition with people like cory gardner and susan collins now saying they would vote on the democratic measures. i think the numbers in this, i think you could see more senators do that. you also, mitch mcconnell has sorts sort of done a homer sifmpson ad stepped back into the hedges. he has been relatively -- i think there's deep seeded animosity by him feeling he was kind of screwed over by the president several weeks ago. >> the mitch mcconnell conundrum is fascinating. he has to worry about his conference and himself. he's up in 2020. so is cory gardner and susan collins, and he's got to walk that line. the trump, you know, matt bevin who's currently the governor of
kentucky primaried mitch mcconnell nearly six years ago. he's got to worry about that too. i get why mitch mcconnell is as you said pulling the homer simpson. >> disappearing. >> it's the reason he wasn't at the white house. >> had he known he would have been there, of course. you choose what to hear from. >> he could not have gotten farther away from that place. he doesn't want to be a prt of that. he has done up to now what he saw his job as, hold his caucus together, and more or less ignore what donald trump is doing. he's in the center of this now, and this is going to put a tremendous amount of pressure on him the longer this goes. >> michael, i keep coming back to the base strategy here, and i'm stuck with impeachment. you know, the second tweet of the day he had today, before he talked about shutdown he talked about impeachment. here's what he tweets this morning, how do you impeach a president who has won perhaps the greatest election of all time, done nothing wrong, no collusion with russia. it was the dems who concluded. had the most successful first
two years of any president and is the most popular republican in party history, 93%. what do you make of that? >> i think it represents how he spends a lot of his day. he's talking to lawyers. he's preparing for what might come with this report, and so i think that he is very focused on that. his staff is going to be very focused on these issues because of the oversight that's going to come from the house, which is just going to take a lot of time and attention and effort on the staff's part. will have to lawyer up in a lot of different ways. it is an obsession for him, and it should be, though. i mean, this is the threat to his power, to his rule, and it's a serious threat. i mean, he will likely be impeached by the house if there's a strong mueller report. >> yeah, i think it almost seems borderline inevitable at this point, at least for hearings. >> he has to hold the republican party strong in the senate in order to avoid conviction. >> and i think this is also a
tool to keep that, his coalition together. you talk about immigration and the wall and impeachment. he talks about impeachment more than democrats talk about impeachment. >> by tenfold. >> right. and i think he uses it to light a fire under the base, bring everyone back in the fold, and because i think those are the two things that animate his supporters. defending him and then also the wa wall, and he's obviously failed getting funding on the wall. >> who's in charge of getting his base, the base or him? lamar alexander has this dream that he's going to be nixon to china, and he's going to create the great comprehensive immigration bill that barack obama and john mccain couldn't figure out. who's in charge of the base, the base or the president? >> i think we could see that in the lead up to this, when we were leading up to this and there was a deal on the table and mitch mcconnell got snookerred once donald trump started listening to other people who said they were speaking on behalf of the base, and he made an abrupt shift.
he's always going to be checked by what, at least he believes his base wants him to do, by what he is told his base wants him to do. the same thing happened in the daca deal. >> he never crosses evangelicals which are the base of his base. if you were to lose them it would just be a disaster. in many ways the least, you know, the most ethically challenged president of modern times. >> it's amazing. >> is now being held up politically in the air by social conservatives, and but he has spent a lot of time shoring up that support, you know, life issues courts and other matters, and including them and inviting them to the white house. i think that that's -- he spent a lot of time there as well, and he does not buck them. >> doug, you've been on capitol hill. you've been in these leadership meetings as sort of the staff guy, as a democrat, what concerns you of how democrats could overplay their hand in the shutdown process?
we're going to get to impeachment later. are you at all concerned at how they managed the shutdown? >> so far now. i think they did the responsible thing. they brought two bills that senate republicans have voted on and passed, right? they can already say, look, we're putting republican bills on the floor. we pass them. that is sort of what we're compromising on. i think that they have been pretty responsible in the language and rhetoric that they've used. >> we're going to get to the new congresswoman from michigan a little later in the show speaking of rhetoric, but that aside. >> right, so far i think they've handled it pretty well. i think they got a very -- an unbelievable concession out of trump in that meeting two weeks ago, so -- but you know, look, the longer this goes, and we're starting to see stories today about people not being able to get marriage licenses in d.c. and national parks having, you know, waste build up. >> how about the tsa agent sick outs? >> tsa, right. the longer this goes it's going to put pressure on both sides. >> today wasn't a payday but a
week from today is. >> that's right. >> also, there's talk i read about what do you do with irs refunds going forward. >> have you tried calling the irs? it's a voice mail. >> and federal courts, too. they can operate for a time on the fees that they collect, but that's maybe a week. >> a week or two more. >> and then the courts will have real problems. so the costs do increase incrementally, they're not as bad as a normal shutdown but they do increase. >> it does feel as if there's a tipping point where if we get past a certain point, people are going to say in for a dime, in for a dollar, but there is that moment, this is the time to get out if you want to save a little bit of face. it feels to me that one week from today is that deadline, that next pay period. >> it's the paycheck. don't underestimate how difficult it is if you're not sure that next paycheck is coming. i'm not convinced this is not already a major problem. i think that it's also -- yeah, for the irs question, refunds won't come. you still have to pay, but your refunds won't come. >> that works out really well
for the non-taxpayer paid for wall. >> none of this will be good, and somebody will have to pay a price for this, and as of right now it seems that it will be the president. the question is will he care? will those things move him. >> i hope nancy pelosi has enough leeway from her own left to get a good deal. she could actually get real progress i think on daca or other issues. >> i assume she's got more leeway on this issue than others, right? >> look, i think that the party is totally united behind her in this position right now. i think that she, you know, the fact that she was able to bring up a republican bill and pass it overwhelmingly, send it back to mitch mcconnell who probably needs to come out from the bushes to bring it up for a vote, that speaks to her strength. >> is there a pressure point for mcconnell at some point where you feel like he has to lead? >> he leads when he thinks that his people are in trouble, and that i think is, you know, the question. these elections are pretty far away, but that's what his calculation is.
>> hey, guys, we're going to take a quick pause here. this topic ain't going away. we're going to continue on it most of the show. stick around, we're going to stay on this breaking news. we're going to have reaction from senators from both sides of the aisle, plus that other big issue at play today, impeachment, how far are house democrats ready to go now versus the rest of the party? we'll be right back. e party? wel 'lbe right back. (ding) hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job. what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪
i like working. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire? then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪ welcome back. joining me now is oklahoma senator, republican james lankford, senator langford, first of all, happy new year, sir. >> happy new year to you as well. good to see you again.
>> yes, sorry that we're speaking under weird circumstances which is a new congress and an old shutdown. let me ask you this first question about the president today and this idea that he could declare basically a state of emergency of sorts and build his wall his way without congress. he believes he has that authority. do you believe he has that authority? >> i'm going to have to see where that authority is coming from. obviously congress delegates those funds and appropriates funds specifically for specific tasks. the president does have some reprogramming authority. that typically has to come back to congress to get additional approval on. he is very passionate about this as an emergency, this needs to be resolved. we do have a high number of people coming in at the border. we have used national guard for instance, and many administrations, president obama, president bush, others used national guard fl. using national guard troops is different than using corps of engineers to build and construct. >> do you believe we are at a
moment that this is, oh, my god, if we don't shut the border the country's going to get overrun by invaders or something? that's the way, to me, that emergency power would be used, no? >> i think it's been -- we faced the same thing with president obama where he would use definitions for things it wasn't the intent of. we face the same thing with president trump, 232 emergency actions for some of the tariffs on steel and aluminum, which i don't agree with those. we do have a very, very serious issue at the border. there's no question we have a record number of individuals coming as families. >> is it worth shutting the government down? >> what? >> is it worth shutting the government down over? >> here's the struggle i have on this, chuck. the president's made no secret for the past year when we get to appropriations for this year, hess not going to sign an appropriation bill unless he does fencing. he's said that for months and months and now we get to the end of it and it suddenly seems to be a shock to democrats he wants
to do fencing at the end of it when he's made it clear this will include some funding for fencing. he asked for 25 billion last year. he's saying let's break it out and what can be done. earlier in the year he said $1.6 billion. then he came back and revised and said i'm looking for 5 billion. we feel like they have the structure to be able to do that and do it well. this has been no shock that he's wanting to have this request. >> i understand that, but doesn't he keep shifting? doesn't he keep moving the goal post hear? look, you guys have gotten caught. you thought he had agreed to a deal, and therefore you voted for it. then you voted for it, and it turned out he didn't agree to a deal. so what are you supposed to believe? did you want the white house have a credibility problem here in these negotiations? >> at the end of the day, the white house, the house and the senate have to all agree on something. that's what chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell what they made the agreement now two weeks ago that the senate wouldn't bring anything up until the house and
white house agreed on it. >> but at one time you guys did, right? isn't that why you did a unanimous vote for the bill? >> it wasn't unanimous. i've heard that statement. it was a voice vote, but there wasn't a roll call that was taken. there was a lot of loud noes. i was one of those knonoes. i didn't know whether the white house would agree to it. i just thought we could do our full seven resolution bills. not try to punt this into february. the whole focus was let's deal with this later. i thought this is the wrong idea when we're so close to getting the whole thing resolved. it's hard to see why we didn't resolve it in the last two weeks already. >> you had two of your colleagues, senators cory gardner and susan collins on the republican side of the aisle have said reopen the government, continue the wall debate, you know, sort of separate out the wall debate. are you there yet? >> no.
i'm not. the hard part is, again, this is no grand secret the president's wanted to do this security. this didn't used to be a partisan issue. if 2006 as you know as you followed for a long time, there was a bipartisan motion for the secure fences act that built 650 miles of fencing. that was supported by vast majorities on both sides of the aisle at that time. now it's become very, very partisan for this very similar style of fencing. no one's talking in congress -- >> senator, with all due respect you keep using -- >> i understand. senator you keep calling it fencing and all of these other things. the president, in fact, mocks that at times, and you know, he talks about steel slats. the point is that there does seem to be what you're describing there is bipartisan support for. how the president describes it there isn't. >> right. >> how do you fix that problem? >> i would say dhs has already fixed that. this is the type of fencing that dhs has approved, the white house has signed off. this particular style of fencing that they've used for a long
time. the white house has backed off of doing a concrete solid wall, which i don't think it would be useful and the border patrol folks said is the wrong way to do the design. there is a difference. in san diego where they changed the fencing from the old style to the new style, when we visited the border patrol folks the old style fencing they had ten penetrations a day. the new style, they're having one a month. there is a dramatic difference if you change the style of fencing. it should be fencing, not a solid wall. >> all right, senator langford i'm going to leave it there. republican from oklahoma, thanks very much. appreciate you coming on. let me turn to a senator from the other side of the aisle, who was listening in on this interview. joining me is maryland senator chris van hollen. happy new year to you. was i incorrect in how i described, if you could support what senator langford described. there's bipartisan support for what he described on the border versus what president trump describes for the border?
>> no, you're right, and democrats have always supported strong border security, and that requires a combination of border secure agents, it requires technology. it requires barriers, call them what you want. >> you do admit some barriers need to be there. >> they've been there for years, many of them, some of them can be strengthened. the point is the president keeps misleading the country into thinking we can somehow stop all the problems of the border by building a 2,000 mile concrete wall. that's not going to happen, and that's what this has come down to. i did hear my colleague -- >> is this a debate over semantics? >> no, it's not a debate over semantics. >> it's a debate over delusion by the president of the united states who told his supporters he was going to build this 2,000 mile wall, which people like mick mull vvaney his acting chi of staff said is childish, they said it's something they abandoned years ago in which the president said mexico would pay for. senator langford said something
interesting, he said he would support supporting the seven appropriation bills. what the house just sent the senate last night was six of those appropriation bills for the full remainder of the fiscal year that the senate approved, and then a stopgap measure for homeland security. >> let me ask you this, whatever's happening this weekend, you represent a lot of federal government workers in the state of maryland. should they be mildly optimistic that at least there is a process to have talks, even if it's low level? >> obviously talking is better than no talking, but i will tell you based on what the president said about this going on for months or years, i'm very worried. i mean, we've seen other government shutdowns, but people are able to resolve them. this is a different president who seems out of touch in so many ways, and you can't negotiate with anybody but him. as you said, republican senators left two weeks ago thinking they had president trump's blessing on the temporary measure only to
find out that they were wrong. >> i'll move to the other story. i want to get your reaction to congresswoman ra she data leeb's comments and the expletive she used about impeachment. >> i wouldn't have used that language. i don't think it's language that trump can pretend he's shocked by, but on the issue of impeachment, i think nancy pelosi and democrats have actually been very clear and consistent. we've said all along it depends on what the mueller investigation comes up with, and we don't know the answer to that question right now. no one's itching for an impeachment, but no one's going to say we're going to prejudge this issue without knowing the facts from the mueller investigation. >> there's no one elected in the house of representatives that isn't itching for this? >> oh, no, there are definitely people. >> and there are individual members who have introduced articles of impeachment, but nancy pelosi and the democratic leadership have been very clear and vir consistent, they're not
itching for an impeachment, but they can't rule it out without knowing the facts of what the mueller investigation will bring. >> do you feel like your constituents, particularly on the democratic side of the aisle, our exit poll showed over 70% of democrats believe that he should be impeached and removed from office. do you think you can -- your party can afford not to at least start impeachment hearings in the house? >> so i can tell you my constituents definitely want a new president, but overwhelmingly they are looking to 2020 and beating donald trump in 2020. now, if the mueller -- >> are you one of those that prefers a 2020 versus impea impeachment? >> as of today, yes, but i cannot forecast what the mueller investigation will bring, and just as, you know, nancy pelosi was right, no one should be impeaching donald trump for political reasons, but nobody can decide not to do their duty for political reasons either, and so let's just find out whether or not the mueller
investigation reveals more information that requires that people take action. >> is there any part of you that says, look, at some point we have to reopen the government no matter what we have to do here, that you have to give him something? at what point do you feel as if -- is there ever a pressure point in your mind that you're like let's give him something to get out of this, we've got to reopen the government? >> it all depends on what you mean by something. no one's going to give him $5 billion for an unnecessary and ineffective wall because in addition to the 5 billion this year, the same thing will happen next year. this wall doesn't cost $5 billion. this is something like 28 to $30 billion, and so what you're going to be doing is saying, okay, trump, every year you can once again threaten to shut down the government to get the wall that mexico was supposed to pay for. so the -- as senator langford pointed out, this administration in their own budget this year only asked for 1.6 billion. they haven't even spent all the
of 1.3 billion that was provided last year. if he said i'll take the 1.6, would that be -- and i know that you guys have taken that off the table, at that point, though, would you be like, fine, let's get out of this thing? >> look, we were very clear, the 1.6 the way it was written also had language saying it's not for a wall. if the president's talking about border security money, we've already provided it. we're happy to have a conversation about border security. he just needs to stop deluding his followers and the country about this idea of a 2,000 mile wall. >> senator chris van hol llen i going to leave it there. up next, a colorful call for impeachment by freshman congresswoman ra scongress ra she data leeb. congress ra she data leeb because when you're ready for what comes next,
welcome back, tonight i'm obsessed with the things president trump knows better than anyone, first and foremost, as we learned today he knows more than everyone on wall street. >> i don't think there was one wall street genius of which i know many of them, but they're not geniuses, there's not one that predicted anywhere close to these job numbers. i thought they were going to be good. >> not just wall street, oh, no, it's way more than that.
>> i know more about the other side than almost anybody. >> i know more about steel workers than anybody that's ever run for office. >> i know more about contributions than anybody. >> i know more about politicians than anybody. >> i know more about courts than any human being on earth. >> i know more about renewables than any human being on earth. >> i understand money better than anybody. >> i understand it better than anybody. >> i know more about drones than anybody. i know about every form of safety that you can have. >> president trump says he knows more than anybody with apparently one exception, nobody. >> having a drone fly overhead, and i think nobody knows much more about technology, this type of technology certainly than i do. >> let me explain how the world works, okay? i think nobody knows more about taxes than i do. >> nobody knows more about trade than me. >> nobody understands it. >> nobody knows the system better than me. >> nobody knows the system. >> nobody knows the system. >> nobody knows it better than
me. >> nobody knows it better. >> nobody knows what it means. i know what it means. >> nobody even understands why. i think i understand why, but i won't say it. >> and i think all this begs the question, if nobody knows more than the president shouldn't nobody be running for office? nobody in 2020 because nobody does it better. sorry, i've been dying to start singing. i think we can all agree, nobody could really be the somebody for everybody. cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. because when you're ready for what comes next, the only direction is forward.
people love you, and you win, and when your son looks at ewe a you and says momma look, you won, bullies don't win. i said baby, they don't, because we're going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the [ bleep ]. >> welcome back, that was newly sworn in michigan congresswoman rashida tlaib who isn't backing down from those comments. she said in a tweet today, i will always speak truth to
power, #unapologeticallyme. nancy pelosi is navigating a divide in her caucus between those who don't want to talk impeachment yet. here's what nancy pelosi told msnbc's joy reid in an exclusive town hall that will air later tonight. >> you're not concerned at all about the way that the president's base will react to the idea of an incoming democratic caucus coming in with the idea already prebaked into the cake they're going to go and get him. you guys are going to go get him? >> you have to weigh the equities. that is not the position of the house democratic caucus. that's freedom of speech of an individual member. as i say, generationally that would not be language i would use, but none theless i don't think we should make a big deal of it. the panel is back, kimberly, michael, doug. sounds like nancy pelosi took one lesson from paul ryan.
hey, that's not the way i would have worded it, but other than that i don't have much else to say. >> look, the impeachment issue is one that nancy pelosi really has to manage. there is a constituency within her caucus that is looking forward to doing that, that wants to push forward with that right away. there are some democrats, you have tom steyer running ads now, pro-impeachment ads and at the same time you have other folks who say let's get other things done. let's not make that the focus. let's wait to see what mueller has to do. that's something that she has to manage up until mueller does do something, and then it becomes a lot more different, more difficult depending on what comes out. >> i found it interesting today that there's almost been more criticism of her bringing up impeachment than her language and by others there was more criticism of the language than the impeachment. it really did depend on which side of this debate you're on. >> she is managing a lot of divisions in her own caucus about how far to go on these
issues, but the reality is even if you're hungry for impeachment you don't want to sound like you're hungry for impeachment. >> she sounded hungry for impeachment. >> you want to go in like you're doing a legal process, which it is, and that requires a certain demeanor, and i think that the -- you know, she, the good thing about nancy pelosi as speaker is she's been there. she knows how governing works, and this is one area where i think that the caucus ought to take some advice from her. >> well, it's interesting today, we caught wup with a few, and here's how they reacted to both the comments in the expletive aspect, but also you hear about the impeachment comments as well. >> i don't really like that kind of language, but more to the point i disagree with what she said, it is too early to talk about that intelligently. >> those kind of comments do not take us in the right direction, so i would say that they are inappropriate. >> impeachment would tear this country apart.
you've got to have facts. >> the leadership of this caucus has spoken out loud and clear of where we're going to go and wait for the mueller commission and protect the mueller commission. >> did she do damage to the democrats here in these comments, tlaib, a little bit of damage? >> i don't think so. i think it was a distraction today. ultimately there are four people that matter here, right? speaker pelosi, nadler, adam schiff, and elijah cummings. they're the four most important people when it comes to conversations about impeachment and most importantly oversight, and i think democrats can score a ton of political points with this president just through the whole oversight process, and the hearings and the subpoenas and all these questions that surround trump's corporation and his taxes and so, look, maybe there will be a time for impeachment, but you know, i don't think democrats should step on that now. go through the whole process. there's a ton out there to discover on this president.
>> as we've noted for some reason president trump wants to talk about this sometimes more so than certainly more than nancy pelosi does. it came up again today at that presser, by the way, where he said that nancy pelosi told him that she wasn't looking to impeach him yet. >> i think it's very hard to impeach somebody who's done a great job, that's number one, and we even talked about that today. i said why don't you use this for impeachment, and nancy said we're not looking to impeach you. i said that's good, nancy. that's good, but you know what? you don't impeach people when they're doing a good job. and you don't impeach people when there was no collusion because there was no collusion. >> i almost wish i could do my little dvr thing here and go let me take you back. we actually talked about it. he brought it up, kimberly. why don't you use this for impeachment, and i'm sure she's going, really? you're bringing up impeachment in our meeting? >> it's projection, i think he's afraid of it, and the other end republicans said all through the
midterm elections that impeachment and immigration is what is going to motivate republican voters to come out and support him. i think he's bringing that up as a way to protect himself. >> and it is the bill clinton example. i mean, bill clinton turned impeachment into a partisan battle between democrats and republicans that benefitted him. that's, i think, what he wants to do in this case. i'm not sure this is the best way to pursue that goal, but that's his strategy. >> in a weird way, the more he talks about it, the more inevitable it comes across. >> and it's also more -- the media talks about it more, and then it forces democrats to respond. the reality is if you talk to most rank and file democrats, their focus is on oversight of this president and of this administration, and then getting past some of those promises that they made on the campaign trail and those promises were not to impeach the president. now that may happen but i think speaker pelosi is perfectly suited for this moment because she had to deal with it in 2006, remember, with george bush and a lot of calls for his
impeachment. >> a smaller amount. >> more importantly she has a memory of how it can backfire. >> she does and she can handle it pretty well. up ahead, 2020 vision time, in new hampshire, the potential candidates who aren't taking the granite state for well, pun intended granted. ♪and shakin' me up so applebee's all you can eat is back. now with shrimp. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.
democratic candidates sprinting up to new hampshire no matter the hurdles in their way. >> washington governor jay inslee is reportedly heading to the granite state soon, but some bad blood awaits him. the chair of the state's democratic party recently sl slammed inslee's time leading the democratic gubernatorial association saying he abandoned new hampshire's governor's race in a time of need and he wants answers. >> i have a strong vision for our country's futures. >> julian castro is also new hampshire bound on january 16th. perhaps the trip is a signal that an official presidential announcement could be coming just days before. >> i have an announcement on january 12th. >> here we go, when you play with exploratory committees, he's already scheduled to be in new hampshire on january 16th. i think i know what he's going to say on january 12th.
it was interesting in the "the washington post," this is how you do this piece about elizabeth warren. it was about how the women candidates all are getting judged fairly or unfairly through the prism of hillary clinton first before they get judged as a candidate themselves. elizabeth warren is somehow going through a time in the barrel on this, and really it's sort of like where did this come from? is this fair, unfair, or is this just the reality she has to live with? >> right. well, i think it's totally unfair. male candidates have to go through the likability examination as well. i think though, because of the
clinton race, i think it's being applied to women candidates probably more. what i really liked about elizabeth warren the last past week, she came out with a very strong and powerful message and a vision that is pretty simple and coherent and clear. you can say what you want about whether you like her or not, but ultimately the message and the vision is going to be what carries you across the finish line. she had that this week. i think it was a good week for her. >> it's obviously a lazy way to like, oh, let's look at the last woman candidate and decide how she is. once there are five women running for president, does this go away, kimberly? >> i think it does. and look, with elizabeth warren, this idea that this likability issue is dogging her, i'm not sure that's completely accurate. i think it's an oversimpli oversimplificati oversimplification. the democrats i take to like her, they like her a lot. they like her in the senate. they just don't see her in this particular role, and i think that that is something specific
to her, and a lot of them who say that prefer people like kamala harris or other women, so i don't think that it's a hillary or a woman problem. i think it's an elizabeth warren problem. >> i do think the bigger problem she has is that last time around warren and sanders controlled the field in some ways on the progressive side. >> they had it to themselves. >> right, exactly, and now i think you're going to have a much broader range, and she's going to have to compete against a much broader range, that, i think is her real challenge. >> i think it's not to look establishment. how does she both be the outsider progressive without -- she's also now been here a while. she's in her second term, you know? >> right, and i think her message helps a lot with that. i think her biggest challenge is making -- is to show that she can beat trump, and i think she has a hurdle that she has to get over over the last couple of months where there was a perception among some democrats that she mishandled this whole situation about her dna, and i think that that is something that -- you know, it's not circulating in iowa a lot, but i
do think among the chattering class it's something that she might have to navigate. >> you actually get to something, i think democrats worry too much about what trump's going to say about them. it's funny you say this. it feels as if they did this basically in response to a trump tweet, right? >> totally. >> she's not the only one. i heard other candidates have been gaming to figure out what nickname is he going to use and how am i going to prevent that. how do you get them to stop focusing on a trump twitter feed. >> they saw what happened in the republican primary in 2016. trump went and labeled every person, and that was the beginning of that you are downfall, and they don't want that to happen to them, especially people who may not be as quick. >> are they overreacting? >> elizabeth warren is not very unscripted so i think there was this sort of an attempt to create this narrative to get out in front of it. other candidates might be a little more nimble. >> well, hey, one thing about her, she's embraced being the front runner. she's like fine, you're going to
treat me like one? she gets in early. a will the of people have played catch up organizationally. >> happy new year, happy friday. thank you all. up ahead victory and defeat. you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally discovered in jellyfish, prevagen has been shown in clinical trials to improve short-term memory. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
way. his journey to the podium was the stuff of legend, literally. you see, he has a hobby. he likes big foot. he's a sasquatch aficionado. he was a devotee of big foot erotica. he is not a devotee of big foot erotica, but he wrote a book about why women want him, not available in stores. the voters cast no a spergzs. they elected him anyway and when he arrived, he was sporting these, bright yellow big foot socks, available in stores. they want their representatives to believe in something. virgin virginia's fifth, whether you are a fan of him or not, he apparently walks the walk. take that, sasquatch. that's all we have for tonight. we will be back on monday
nt -- "mtp daily" good evening, ari. >> a love a get big foot reference. i grew up in the pacific northwest and we keep our eyes pilled. >> sasquatch is somewhere west of spokane. >> possibly. maybe. we will be watching this sunday. as we begin our broadcast, we reflect on this. this is formally the first business day of donald trump's new reality, democrats running the show in the u.s. house. we have a preview of how they plan to use the new power. they want to investigate the trump presidency. one is here tonight. also tonight a warps from a top democrat to senator elizabeth warren as she is in iowa. that democrat is here live on the beat. a republican member of congress also defending donald trump's